fruit-2305192
Image: © Bosland Corp. via Flickr

Should the NHS pay for diet drinks?

It might save taxpayer money, but does it stop people taking responsibility for their health?

Replacing normal food with shakes and soups is appaz really effective. That’s nice, but why should the NHS pay for them?

What it means: Most of us (64 percent of English adults) are overweight, which means we have a BMI (body mass index, our weight divided by our height) of over 25. That’s not so good for us: overweight people die earlier and are more likely to get sick from everything from cancer to diabetes to heart disease. A new weight-loss study says diet drinks should be available on the NHS, at a cost to the government and taxpayer. Is that fair?

Argument one: yes. All those illnesses obesity causes have to be treated - which costs the NHS £6.1 billion a year. That’s a lot of money for a health service that is struggling to make ends meet. If paying for Brits' shakes causes them to lose weight, doctors and nurses will have more time and money to spend on other patients, and/or we won’t have to pay higher taxes to fund the growing expense of the NHS and/or we could spend some of that money on other things lots of us like, such as hiring more police officers or building new roads.

Argument two: no. Most obesity is caused by personal choice (eating too much, exercising too little) and taxpayers shouldn’t cushion people from the consequences of their bad decisions. Rather than helping overweight people diet, the NHS should refuse to treat people whose illnesses are caused by their weight. Instead, overweight people would have to take out private health insurance, which would be more expensive the more unhealthy they were. That gives them a money incentive to lose weight.

The thing with argument two is that it would be unfair to make overweight people pay for their own healthcare without putting the same restrictions on other people who make risky decisions about their health - smokers, say, or motorcross fans. And because most of us do something risky, the obvious end point would be to jack in the current NHS free-at-the-point-of-delivery model and tell everyone to have health insurance instead (as lots of other countries do).

Recent articles

Reader Comments

  • RW

    Your right to a degree. You mentioned “the wandering Jew”.

    I elaborate that the Jewish people, historically have tended to migrate almost exclusively to locations that are economically and culturally vibrant already. I would speculate that Jews have thrived in these places and have often improved the bounds of their economies and knowledge base.

    You can also ask; how many massive entertainment conglomerates, Nobel winners or billionaires has Isreal developed? If Jews are so capable, why isn’t Tel Aviv the Rome of our time?

    Jews are successful because they value education, maintain a strong social cohesive, they actively monitor and have a good sense for Zeitgeist wherever they are and they carefully choose the places they settle and congregate themselves heavily in these choice locations.

    But most importantly (haulocaust increased the importance of this aspect), they actually designed their culture for success. They not only attend Harvard, they use what they learned to better the group as a whole. With as much, they studied intricate networking systems, adapted to it and in many cases improved upon them. (See how Japan acquired Aegis warships and made them better).

    Of course there is nothing wrong with any of this. It’s when you elaborately gain disproportionate power in any society where you would stand out, you must take care when attempting to make a society better (Civil Rights movement) and rewriting that society all together (mass immigration). Ask blacks in China, Mexico, Philippines or India how much opportunity they have? Go to businesses owned by their American diaspora and see how many blacks they hire. Go to Silicon Valley and see how many East or South Asian tech workers wish they could work with more black people. California might work as a state, but as a nation, I think your rolling the nuclear dice here. I hope we can succeed as a tolerant pluralistic superpower but at this stage in human societal development, it’s a pipe dream.

    And if Jews really are the icon for success, they would see that fundamental human successes happen over generations. Just look at the rest of the planet? Are we ready?